The AI Council sends one question to several top AI models at the same time, shows you each answer the moment it arrives, and then has a referee model compare them claim by claim — so instead of trusting a single chatbot, you see exactly where independent models agree and where they contradict each other. It is the thing no vendor's own chatbot offers: ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini each let you re-ask their own tiers, but none of them puts a rival's answer next to its own. This is a feature of Secret Chat AI, the AI aggregator.
Two sizes: Duet and Quartet
- Duet — two models + referee, and you choose the pair (ChatGPT + Claude by default, or any other combination of the four). The same referee and the same disagreement table as the big panel: a smaller council, not a lesser answer — faster, cheaper, and free within the daily quota.
- Quartet — all four models answer in parallel: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok, one from each company. A referee then extracts the factual claims, builds a disagreement table (which model asserts, contradicts, or ignores each claim), writes a short synthesis from the claims at least two models agree on, and flags the rest under "Verify before acting". There is nothing to configure — leaving a model out would be leaving out the one that might have disagreed.
Every model on a panel comes from a different company, and that is the whole point: the value of a council is that independent providers disagree, while two tiers of the same family agreeing is far weaker evidence, since they share training data and blind spots. A Quartet uses all four; a Duet lets you pick which pair.
Checking an answer you already have
A council does not have to start with a question. Paste an answer you got somewhere else — from ChatGPT, a colleague, a forum, a newsletter — into a Duet or a Quartet and ask the panel to check it. Each model goes through the pasted text and says what it thinks holds up, and the referee then compares those verdicts claim by claim, so a claim two independent models both query is flagged in the table rather than buried in two long replies.
It also works in the middle of a conversation. Ask a single model first, then switch that same chat to a Duet or Quartet and ask "is that right?" — a council reads the whole conversation, so the answer it is checking is the one already on your screen and there is nothing to copy across. That is often the cheapest way to use it: one model to draft, two to check the parts that matter.
Every panellist searches the web
A council of four models answering from memory would be four training cutoffs agreeing with each other. So each panellist answers with live web search attached — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok each run their own provider's search and can open the pages they find, and the referee then compares what they came back with. That is what makes a disagreement worth something: two models that both searched and still contradict each other have found different evidence, not merely remembered different things.
The free panel is the exception, and it says so under every free answer: DeepSeek Flash and GPT Luna are fast and cheap but answer from memory. Neither is grounded here — the DeepSeek model we run exposes no web-search tool for us to attach, and the fast GPT tier is never given OpenAI's search — so on the free panel you are comparing what two models remember, not what they found.
Why answers appear one by one
The models run in parallel, and each answer is revealed in its own tab the moment that model finishes — you read the first answer while the others are still being written. The referee's comparison appears once every answer is in. A council is only as slow as its slowest member, not the sum of the panel.
What it costs
A council spends credits like any other message — roughly what asking the same question to each panel model separately would cost, plus a small referee step. There is no separate subscription for it: every credit pack and plan runs councils at the same rate, and the pricing page shows what each pack buys in councils. The Duet is free within the daily free quota, on a lighter panel (DeepSeek Flash + GPT Luna) — you can watch two independent models disagree, and have an answer you were given elsewhere checked, without ever paying. Credits buy the branded panel: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok, each searching the web live, and the four-model Quartet. That live search is a real part of the cost — every provider charges per query on top of the answer itself.
Each answer is priced separately, next to the model that wrote it, with the referee's step stated on its own line — so a council compares what the models charge as well as what they say. That is a comparison you cannot make anywhere else: it is the only place several models answer the same question, and the same question can cost twice as much on one model as on another for an answer no better. In your credit history that spend is filed under ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok like any other message on those models, rather than hidden behind one "council" line.
Privacy — stated honestly
A council multiplies where your question travels: instead of one provider, your question reaches each model on the panel, and the referee model additionally reads the question together with the panel's answers. Every one of those requests goes out the same way as any other Secret Chat AI message — anonymously, with no profile and no account identity attached. As everywhere in the app, anonymization protects who you are, not what you type: whatever the question contains reaches those providers verbatim, so leave out details that identify you. The finished check — every answer and the disagreement table — is stored only on your device, like the rest of your chats, and the Session Privacy Report lists every model that took part in the turn, not just the one whose answer you read.
The honest limit
Agreement between models is evidence, not proof. Models are trained on overlapping data and share blind spots, so independent providers can be confidently wrong together — research on cross-model comparison finds correlated errors even across different architectures. What a council reliably gives you is the opposite signal: when models disagree, you know a claim needs checking before you rely on it, and the table shows you exactly which one. Read the synthesis as "what the panel converged on", not as established fact, and treat nothing here as professional advice — for medical, legal or financial decisions, the council tells you which claims to bring to a professional, not which to act on.
When to use it
- Health, legal, money — anywhere a confidently wrong answer is expensive, and exactly the questions people prefer to ask anonymously. The council is a filter for what to verify with a professional, never a substitute for one.
- Facts you are about to repeat — in a report, an email, an argument. "Two of four models contradict this" is worth knowing before you hit send.
- Checking another AI's work — paste in the answer you were given, or switch a chat you have already had to a council, because the answer you already have is often the thing you actually want verified.
For a quick second opinion on a single message inside an ordinary conversation, threads remain the lightweight alternative — branch the question and switch the model. The council is for when you want the comparison done for you, claim by claim.